Use acoustic devices at aquaculture systems

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    45%
  • Certainty
    45%
  • Harms
    45%

Study locations

Key messages

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (6 STUDIES)

  • Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including five before-and-after and/or site comparison studies and one controlled study) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Reloncaví fjord and the Mediterranean Sea found that using acoustic devices at salmon farms reduced predation on caged salmon by grey seals, harbour seals and South American sea lions, or reduced the number of harbour seals approaching a fish cage. The two other studies found that using acoustic devices did not reduce harbour seal predation at salmon farms, or reduce the presence, approach distances, groups sizes or time spent around fin-fish farms by common bottlenose dolphins.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison study in 2001–2003 of 27 Atlantic salmon Salmo salar farms in the North Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Maine, USA (Nelson et al. 2006) found that using acoustic devices did not reduce numbers of fish lost or damaged due to Western Atlantic harbour seal Phoca vitulina concolor predation. Estimated numbers of fish lost or damaged due to seal predation did not differ significantly between farms that did or did not use acoustic devices (data reported as statistical model results). There was also no significant difference between farms that used acoustic devices seasonally or all year round, or those that operated them for different numbers of hours/day. Eighteen farms used acoustic devices for 8–24 h/day (12 all year round; six seasonally). Nine farms did not use acoustic devices. Farm managers were sent annual questionnaires in 2001–2003. Data were collected on methods used to deter predators and estimated numbers of fish lost or damaged due to seal predation.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after, site comparison study in 2007–2008 at two salmon farms in the Reloncaví fjord, Chile (Vilata et al. 2010) found that installing an acoustic device reduced the amount of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar predated by South American sea lions Otaria flavescens, and fewer salmon were predated overall compared to at a farm without a device. At one farm, lower amounts of salmon were predated by sea lions in April–June 2008 after the acoustic device was installed (total 8 tons) compared to April–June 2007 before the device was installed (total 13 tons). During April–June 2008, lower amounts of salmon were also predated at the farm with the acoustic device than at a second farm without a device (total 68 tons), where amounts of predated salmon increased during this time (from 8 to 42 tons/month). The amount of predated salmon at the two farms did not differ significantly in January–March 2008 before the device was installed (8 vs 13 tons). An acoustic device (Airmar dB Plus II with eight sound projectors) was installed at one of two salmon farms in March 2008. The device emitted 1.4 ms sounds at intervals of 40 ms and a frequency of 10.3 kHz. Data on salmon predated by sea lions in 2007–2008 were taken from each of the two farms’ logbooks.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A before-and-after study in 2009 at a fin-fish farm in the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Sardinia, Italy (López & Mariño 2011) found that an active acoustic device did not reduce common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus presence, approach distances, group size or time spent in the area compared to before or after the device was active. Bottlenose dolphin presence and minimum approach distances did not differ significantly before, during or after the acoustic device was active (data not reported). The same was true for average dolphin group sizes (before: 2 dolphins; during: 5 dolphins; after: 3 dolphins) and the average time dolphins spent in the area (before: 15 minutes; during: 19 minutes; after: 23 minutes). In February–June 2009, an acoustic device attached to a fish cage was activated (emitting 1.2–1.8 second tones at 6.2–9.8 kHz) for 40 minutes during each of 144 trials. The fish farm (12,000 m2) consisted of 21 floating nylon mesh cages, 200 m from the shore. During each trial, dolphins were observed from a stationary boat during 40-minute periods before, during and after the device was active. Thirty periods for each of the three stages (before, during, after) were randomly selected for analysis.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled study in 2007 at a fish farm in the North Atlantic Ocean, Scotland, UK (Götz & Janik 2015) found that using an acoustic device reduced the number of harbour seals Phoca vitulina that approached a fish cage. Overall, fewer seals approached within 250 m of the cage when an acoustic device was used (2 seals) than when a device was not used (17 seals). No significant difference in numbers of approaches was found at distances of 250–1,500 m (with device: 8 seals; without: 11 seals) or >1,500 m from the cage (with device: 8 seals; without: 7 seals). Sixteen experimental trials (with an acoustic device) and 16 control trials (without a device) were carried out. Each trial lasted an average of 3.5 h. The device (an underwater loudspeaker emitting 200 ms pulses with a peak frequency of 950–1,000 Hz) was placed on a fish cage with the transducer at a depth of 17 m. Seals were tracked with a theodolite from the shore during each of the 32 trials in June–July 2007.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A before-and-after, site comparison study in 2010–2012 at a salmon Salmo salar farm in the North Atlantic Ocean, Scotland, UK (Götz & Janik 2016) found that deploying an acoustic device reduced predation on caged salmon by grey seals Halichoerus grypus and harbour seals Phoca vitulina. Fewer salmon were lost to seal predation while an acoustic device was deployed (0–70 fish/month) compared to before (97–104 fish/month) or after (4–9 fish/month) the device was deployed or at two control sites without acoustic devices (2–238 fish/month; 0–99 fish/month). No seal predation occurred during 10 of 12.5 months in which the acoustic device was deployed, whereas seal predation occurred during each of eight months at one control site without an acoustic device and six of seven months at the other. From January 2011 to February 2012, an acoustic device with 2–4 transducers (emitting 200 ms pulses at random intervals) was deployed at the centre of a salmon farm comprising a grid of 2 x 4 rectangular steel cages. Control sites were two salmon farms (with two rows or grids of 6–9 cages) without acoustic devices. In 2010–2012, salmon losses to seal predation (dead fish with bite wounds) were counted during 2.5 months before, 12.5 months during and 3 months after the acoustic device was deployed and during 7–8 months at the two control sites.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A before-and-after study in 2011 at a salmon Salmo salar farm in the North Atlantic Ocean, Scotland, UK (Götz & Janik 2016) found that deploying an acoustic device reduced predation on caged salmon by grey seals Halichoerus grypus and harbour seals Phoca vitulina. Fewer salmon were lost to seal predation while an acoustic device was deployed (0–10 fish/cage) compared to before the device was deployed (27–72 fish/cage). In May 2011, an acoustic device with a single transducer (emitting 200 ms pulses at random intervals) was deployed at a salmon farm (two rows of nine cages). Two cages on the farm were stocked with fish. Salmon losses (dead fish with bite wounds) were counted and removed from each of the two cages every 6–8 days during four weeks before and two weeks after the acoustic device was deployed.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation - Published 2021

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust